It is said that a number of broader benefits to society stem from the introduction of temporary monopolies and other restrictions on private intellectual property rights (WTO, 2008: 39; CIPR, 2002: 14-18). The introduction of legal protection – the fight against piracy and counterfeiting – promotes the disclosure of new knowledge and creativity, and the considerable costs associated with the creative process (. B for example, research and development) can be recovered and deserved. Innovation is thus both rewarded and encouraged. The scale and reliability of a global IPR regime should not only promote innovation at home, but also the security offered to patent holders in the developed world and others, also promote foreign direct investment, technology transfers and licensing, and the dissemination of knowledge in developing countries (Matthews, 2002: 108-111). TRIPS is therefore able to play an important role in promoting overall trade and economic development. In addition to the basic intellectual property standards set out in the TRIPS agreement, many nations have committed to bilateral agreements to adopt a higher level of protection. This collection of standards, known as TRIPS or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms.  One of the general objectives of these agreements is that the TRIPS agreement has for the first time integrated intellectual property law into the multilateral trading system and remains the most comprehensive multilateral IP agreement to date. In 2001, developing countries, fearing that developed countries had insisted on too narrow a reading of the TRIPS trip, launched a series of discussions that culminated in the Doha Declaration.
The Doha Declaration is a WTO DECLARATION that clarifies the scope of the TRIPS agreement, which states, for example, that TRIPS can and should be interpreted in light of the objective of “promoting access to medicines for all”. Daniele Archibugi and Andrea Filippetti argue that the importance of TRIPS in the process of developing and disseminating knowledge and innovation has been overestimated by its supporters. This was supported by the FINDINGs of the United Nations that many low-protection countries regularly benefit from significant foreign direct investment (FDI).  Analysis of OECD countries in the 1980s and 1990s (which extended the lifespan of drug patents by 6 years) showed that, although the total number of registered products increased slightly, the average innovation index remained unchanged.  On the other hand, J-rg Baten, Nicola Bianchi and Petra Moser (2017) find historical evidence that compulsory licensing – a key mechanism for weakening IP rights under Article 31 of TRIPS – can effectively lead to the promotion of inventions by increasing the threat to competition in areas of low competition.